Actually, no. That is pretty much what is the Smith proposal, which most want to pass. What the conservatives are pushing for his a hell of a lot more. Bigallan’s post catches some of it, but there are other bits. So the major differences to Smith’s proposed Act are:
The bill requires not only amendments to the Marriage Act but an amendment to the federal Sex Discrimination Act. It would also override prevailing state and territory anti-discrimination laws that offer no protection for people with a traditional view of marriage.
The protections to shield proponents of traditional marriage from civil law suits, however, will be limited to only those goods and services directly related to the solemnisation of a same-sex marriage or the provision of a wedding. This includes goods and services provided by florists, bakers, hotels or function centres but only so far as they relate to a same-sex wedding (as pointed out by Bigallan)
Anti-detriment laws would also be applied to prevent government agencies taking adverse action against a person who holds a traditional marriage belief and extend that shield protection to professions that are licensed, such as doctors and lawyers. Businesses and individuals would, however, not be included, preserving freedom of association.
Charities that held a belief in traditional marriage could not be stripped of their charitable status, as has occurred in other countries, while Christian schools and institutions would be protected in teaching traditional marriage.
parents’ rights to choose to remove their children from school classes that conflict with their values, providing a safeguard for parents who object to the controversial Safe Schools program.
So pretty much, any religious institution can discriminate, charities can discriminate, lots of businesses can discriminate, you can’t be sacked or censored at work for your views, and parents can protect their poor vulnerable babies from evil views on society’s actual makeup.
If the clubs support of SSM is the thing that finally ■■■■■ Ant McGuire off then it’s worth it just for that.
Got the impression during the Saga that he saw himself as an ‘influential supporter’ and wannabe club political player. I know he was one of the group pushing for an EGM after hird was removed. Absolute PR disaster if he actually got meaningfully involved in the club. Bloke is a loon.
FWIW last night on Lateline there was a conversation with a Muslim, Anglican and a Jesuit. Their main concerns were with the schooling/teaching of children.
If a civil celebrant refuses to uphold the marriage act then they can deregister themselves. Your role has literally nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with legalities.
From memory he (or his dad, or both) ran some crummy catholic blog where after the club announced the Purple Bombers he used the whole saga stuff to prove how sinful it was.
Miranda Devine is an odd unit. People give ■■■■ to Andrew Bolt for what he comes up with sometimes (at least he can write well), but she needs to be heavily medicated alongside Mark Latham.
The fact that she has been such an ardent supporter of George Pell tells you all you need to know about her. She really does need to take a long walk down the world’s shortest pier.
Not all churches believe that a marriage HAS TO be performed by a priest (e.g, in the catholic church, marriage is a sacrament, but in most Protestant churches it is not). Many churches see no problem in having lay people officiate at weddings, because they see marriage is a function of society in general, and not a sacrament of the church.
However, the Marriage Act only recognises religious marriages performed by “Ministers of Religion” nominated by their registered religious organisation (e.g. clergy).
So, without any hypocrisy, you could have a civil celebrant who has personal religious convictions. So should you protect their right to work according to their convictions? Or do their beliefs preclude them from working in the marriage industry? And if so, is this not discrimination based on religion?
I don’t think it was too many Catholics treading the ‘no’ line. When Archbishop Hart said SSM brides and grooms would be sacked from Catholic schools and hospitals, a poll had 70 odd percent of Catholics say “up yours, Hart!”
Doctors have the legal right to refuse to perform an abortion due to personal convictions, as long as they refer that person to someone else. They don’t have to give up being a doctor.